ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Is Robert Gates Now The Greatest Advocate Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal?

By Igor Volsky on Nov 30, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offered the strongest endorsement of the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this afternoon, warning opponents of repeal that if they “choose not to act legislatively,” they are “rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the Courts.” “It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat –- by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance,” he said, urging Congress to “pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year.”

Towards the end of the press conference, Gates even expanded on his personal support for repeal, insisting that the ban was inconsistent with military values:

GATES: One of the things that is most important to me is personal integrity. And a policy and a law that in effect requires people to lie gives me a problem. We spend a lot of time in the military talking about integrity and honor and values. Telling the truth is a pretty important value in that scale. It’s a very important value and so for me…A policy that requires people to lie about themselves somehow seems to me fundamentally flawed.

Watch a compilation:

Responding to a question from The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld, Gates also pushed back against Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) argument that the report did not go far enough in studying the report’s effect on military readiness and effectiveness, saying that McCain “is mistaken.” “This report does provide a sound basis for making decisions on this law,” he said, adding “it’s hard for me to imagine that you can come up with a more comprehensive approach.

Of course many DADT repeal advocates, myself included, have criticized Gates for dragging his feet on repeal and delaying the release of the study until the final days of the Congressional session. And while those criticisms are probably still valid — Gates seemed like a reluctant actor in the DADT drama and he may still wish to slow-walk implementation — it’s fairly obvious that the report’s positive findings and the courts’ recent rulings have moved him to action. Let’s just hope that moderate Democrats and Republicans — particularly those who said they would wait for the release of the report before reaching a decision — heed his advice.

Update

The full clip of Gates responding to McCain’s criticism is worth highlighting:

Yglesias

The Demand for Dollars

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 30, 2010 at 4:38 pm

(cc photo by LateNightTaskForce)

The trouble in Europe seems to be getting worse, with debt fears spreading somewhat beyond even Spain to Belgium and Italy.

This is something people need to keep in mind when they think about QE2 and the fact that the real problem with current monetary policy is that it’s not loose enough. One thing you’re seeing as all this plays out in Europe is that the Euro is declining in value relative to the dollar. The dollar could go up for two kinds of reasons. One would be that foreigners are increasing their demand for US-made goods and services. They could be saying “I don’t want these Italian financial assets, I’m going to go buy a Boeing jet.” But obviously that’s not what’s happening here. Instead people are concerned about the increasingly rickety-looking European monetary system and want to get their hands on dollars as such.

The right response to this is for the Fed to be doing monetary stimulus—printing more money. This can take a number of forms. Buying longer-dated Treasuries seems to be what the FOMC is most comfortable with, but in a lot of ways I think it would be better to just create the money and send it to people. There are some questions about exactly how you would organize such a “helicopter drop” but I’m confident it could be worked out. And working those problems out would, among other things, have the advantage of improving the politics of monetary stimulus. Cut the banks out of the transmission mechanism and illustrate the fact that the point is to increase the amount of money that people have.

Politics

Kristol Incorrectly Claims That WikiLeaks Docs Reveal Arabs Are ‘Not Worrying About Israeli Settlements’

By Ben Armbruster on Nov 30, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Yesterday on Fox News, top neocon Bill Kristol broke through all the media noise about WikiLeaks’ release of U.S. diplomatic cables and came up with his top headline: that the U.S. should forget about Middle East peace and attack Iran.

KRISTOL: The world really did not want Iran to get the nuclear weapons and Iran’s neighbors in particular don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and they’d like us to act to prevent it.

They’re not worrying about Israeli settlements on the West Bank or the Arab street disliking an attack on Iran. They understand that Iranian nuclear weapons would change the balance of power in the Middle East and call them to go nuclear. It would be an incredible setback for all American efforts to check the spread of radical Islam and terror and further nuclear proliferation in Middle East and around the world. That’s the headline.

Watch it:

While it is true that the WikiLeaks docs reveal that Arab leaders urged the U.S. to take action against Iran’s nuclear program, it is not true that the docs show that Arabs aren’t “worrying about Israeli settlements” as Kristol claimed. In July 2009, Egyptian General Intelligence Service Chief Omar Soliman told Gen. David Petraeus that he was concerned about continued Israeli settlements:

Palestinians must believe that Abbas is capable of securing a Palestinian state, Soliman stressed. He noted recent positive developments in the West Bank, including improvements in the Palestinian security forces and the lifting of some Israeli roadblocks to facilitate commerce and movement. He expressed concern, however, that continued settlement activity, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent “radical” speech, and insufficient economic development in Palestinian areas were undermining the chances for resuming peace negotiations. Soliman added that President Mubarak may invite Nentanyahu and Abbas to Cairo if efforts to re-start negotiations became “blocked.”

Another cable from February 2010 reports that Saudi King Abdullah is also worried about Israeli settlements. “The King appreciates the President’s commitment to Middle East peace but is skeptical the U.S. can bring sufficient and sustained pressure to bear on Israel, especially regarding settlements.”

Kristol appears to be downplaying the significance of a negotiated peace deal between Israel and Palestine. But the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that the cables show leaders from many Arab countries telling American officials that solving the Israel/Palestine issue is “key” to peace in the region and that “Iran exploits crises for its own advantage, making the defusing of crises like Palestine and Lebanon imperative if we are to keep Iran in check.”

Climate Progress

Video: Steven Chu on why China’s bid for clean energy leadership should be our “Sputnik Moment”

By Joe Romm on Nov 30, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Sputnik

When it comes to innovation, Americans don’t take a back seat to anyone – and we certainly won’t start now.  From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead.

Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it’s time for America to do what we do best: innovate.  As President Obama has said, we should not, cannot, and will not play for second place.

That’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu in speech Monday on how China’s bid for world leadership in clean energy should be our “Sputnik moment.”

Here is the PowerPoint presentation that goes with the speech, the source of the image above (h/t Ecocentric).  What follows is a video of the talk and an excerpted post by videographer extraordinaire Peter Sinclair on his Climate Crocks blog:
Read more

Security

Delay Likely Means Death For New START

By Max Bergmann on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm

In response to criticism for stalling the New START treaty, Senate Republicans have insisted that all they are talking about is a delaying a vote for a couple of months. After all, what’s the difference, Republicans insist, between a vote in December and a vote in February? The difference is that the idea that there will be a vote in January or February is a myth. Only the most naive in the ways of Washington would believe differently. Let’s be clear: delaying a vote likely means the death of the treaty.

First of all, the treaty ratification process will have to start all over. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could technically vote the treaty out of committee again immediately, but with a change in members on both sides of the aisle, new hearings will be insisted upon by the new minority members. New Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), among others, have in fact already demanded this. Therefore, these new round of hearings will take time. So we are likely looking at a delay in the committee vote until about April.

If the treaty is voted out of committee, it will then need Senate floor time and will need the votes of 15 Republicans instead of 9. And to make the ratification math even harder, some of these new Republicans are replacing more moderate Republicans, such as Bob Bennett (R-UT) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

The treaty will therefore be firmly in the hands of the Senate Republican leadership. We don’t know if Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is just trying to kill the treaty quietly or if he wants to push it into next year to gain even more leverage in order extort more nuclear pork funding.

Kyl initially tied his potential support for START to funding increases for the nuclear weapons complex — an issue that is not affected or related to the treaty. The Administration capitulated and capitulated again to Kyl’s demands and is now planning to allocate $85 billion over ten years, about a 20 percent increase more than the Bush administration. Yet Kyl has refused to take yes for an answer and has continuously moved the goal posts. Now no one actually knows what Kyl wants anymore.

Furthermore, what we witnessed over the past year from Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was a deliberate strategy to delay and obstruct the treaty. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was set to vote in August, Republicans insisted on delay, accusing the committee of “rushing.” Following the vote in bipartisan committee vote in September, Republicans insisted a floor vote couldn’t happen before the election because it would “reek of politics” –- despite the fact the original START treaty was voted on just before an election. Kyl himself even told Reuters in August that the lame duck period was the appropriate period. Reuters paraphrased:

the Senate might need a “lame duck” session if it wants to vote on the new START this year, he [Kyl] said.

Now Republicans say that a lame duck session is not an appropriate place to vote on a treaty (I guess voting to impeach a President in a lame duck session, despite having lost seats in the election is acceptable, however).

What we do know, however, is that there is no reason to believe that Kyl will be in any rush to ratify the treaty in the new year. In fact, one can already predict the new excuses for delay. First, it will be needing to wait for the new President’s budget, then it will be because we need to guarantee that the congress approves the new spending in the FY12 budget, then some low level Russian official will say something about not liking missile defense and Kyl will say “see we can’t do the treaty” or “we need more time.”

On top of all this, the 2012 election starts in full swing next year. With Republican candidates tripping over themselves to move to the right (Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin have already come out in opposition to the treaty), the chances that the Republican leadership in the Senate would provide President Obama a “victory,” however slight a victory, becomes increasingly less likely.

So while it might not be now or never for the START treaty, it will certainly be perceived that way in Moscow and other capitals around the world. And the implications of its failure, or perceived failure will be very serious.

Update

Following today’s meeting with President Obama, it now looks like the Republican Senate leadership is trying to use the treaty as leverage to extend tax cuts for the richest Americans. The Washington Post reports:

A possible end game that appeared to taking shape, numerous Senate sources said, could give Republicans the across-the-board tax-cut extensions that they are seeking, albeit in temporary form, in exchange for a Senate vote on the arms control treaty, a top priority for Obama.”

Yglesias

Hangover Theory

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Karl Smith explains what’s wrong with the view that today’s recession is punishment for yesterday’s overindulgence:

[W]e say that Germany’s economy seems to be recovering. However, consumption in Germany is not rising. Consumption is flat. Working is rising. Employment is rising. That is what it means to be doing well. It means that more people are doing more work.

This is why it makes no sense to say that a recession is inevitable because we overconsumed. Because we bought too much it is now inevitable that we work less? Why does that make fundamental sense? Surely something is going wrong. Shouldn’t we be working more to pay for all the stuff we bought.

This is what Paul Krugman called the hangover theory of recessions back in the late 1990s and it appeals to people because the moral logic is compelling. But as Smith points out, it doesn’t make sense because of the fundamental difference between production and consumption. It’s true that in the past we were consuming more than we produced and that level of consumption was unsustainable. But the need to bring consumption down below the level of output is no reason output has to fall.

Politics

Jeb Bush Calls GOP Plans For Government Shutdown ‘Naive’: ‘You Can’t Shut Down The Government’

By Tanya Somanader on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Making full use of their arsenal for gridlock, many GOP members are itching for the opportunity to force a government shutdown next year. Forming a veritable “shutdown caucus,” a new cohort of Republicans like Rep.-elect Alan Nunnelee (MS), Rep.-elect Tim Walberg (MI), and Sen.-elect Mike Lee (UT) joined veteran Reps. Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Steve King (R-IA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) to push the radical tactic, popular among their conservative base. Indeed, Tea Party leaders and their conservative cohort are keen to pull the shutdown trigger, firing warning shots at Republicans who “may be growing squeamish” at the thought.

But “one of the most popular Republicans in the nation” is brushing off such clamoring as political noise. Asked by Newsmax’s Kathleen Walter whether he viewed the “grassroots conservatives” push for shutdown as a “mistake,” Bush dismissed the notion as “a little naive,” because, quite simply, “you can’t shut down the government”:

WALTER: Governor Bush, some grassroots conservatives say that Republicans should reserve the right to shutdown the federal government rather than vote to raise the debt ceiling in the next Congress. Do you view that as a mistake?

BUSH: I view it as a little naïve. First of all, you can’t shut down the government. There are public safety, national security issues, that override a well-intended point, I’m sure, that government is way too big. Better to have a plan on how you reduce the debt by reducing the deficit. And that plan is out there…You can create a roadmap where you have declining deficits that would create a whole lot of confidence, a lot more confidence than shutting down government for a couple of weeks and then admitting that its not going to be finished. It’s harder to build consensus around the tough choices that have to be made, but that’s what has to be done.

Watch it (starting at 9:00):

Dubbing a government shutdown over the debt ceiling “naive” is a bit of an understatement. The GOP’s first attempt to shut down the government in 1995 and 1996 threatened “worldwide economic catastrophe,” cost taxpayers more than $800 million and “shook international confidence in U.S. government bonds.” What’s more, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would not only result in a government shutdown itself, but would cause “worldwide financial panic,” a “default on the national debt,” a “severe drop in economic growth and employment,” and an “actual increase in long-term deficits and debt.” The GOP plan to threaten public safety and national security in order to secure a full-on economic meltdown is much more than naive, it’s a surefire disaster.

Like Bush, some GOP members including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) are beginning to realize the “chaos” that would ensure from such a policy. As the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen notes, certainly their public remarks which “position a shutdown as beyond the pale help create an incentive for Republicans to avoid one.” But Paul’s own impossible proposal to find enough cuts to balance the deficit in one to two years threatens “chaos” of its own and “even possibly a shutdown.” Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap, which Bush touts as a good shutdown alternative, is just as misguided. Not only would it radically undermine Social Security through privatization, it would tax the middle class at a higher rate than the wealthy and end Medicare as we know it. While Bush is right to warn his comrades against a shutdown, his misplaced “hope” that younger GOP members will “show a better path” appears to be equally naive.

Economy

Pence Invokes Reagan To Push Budget Plan That Former Reagan Economic Official Calls ‘Total Crock’

By Pat Garofalo on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) — who has been serving as House Republican Conference chairman and is being touted as a possible 2012 Presidential nominee — gave what his office promoted as a “major economic speech” at the Detroit Economic Club. At the best of times, Pence has a very tenuous grasp of economic reality, but he still believes that he has the recipe for fixing the country’s long-term deficit: a spending limit amendment to the Constitution. During his speech, Pence invoked former President Reagan to promote his idea for this new constitutional amendment:

For my part, I believe the answer is a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution. Since World War II the federal government has operated on an average of just under 20 percent of gross domestic product. But, in the past three years, federal spending has climbed to nearly 25 percent of GDP. Left unchecked, and accounting for no new programs, federal spending will reach 50 percent of GDP by 2055. We should remember what Ronald Reagan said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.” We must have a mechanism that forces Washington as a whole to make the hard choices necessary to reform our nation’s addiction to big spending and unsustainable entitlements.

Pence then appeared on CNBC to reiterate his support for spending cap amendment. Watch it:

But over at Capital Gains and Games, Bruce Bartlett — who served as an economic official under both Reagan and President George H.W. Bush — blasted Pence as “not ready for prime time” because of his amendment proposition:

I just want to call attention to Pence’s ultra-gimmicky plan for dealing with the deficit: a constitutional amendment limiting federal spending to 20 percent of GDP. No need to spell out spending cuts or anything politically unpopular, just let the Constitution do all the dirty work. What a total crock.

Pence does have an awfully hard time identifying any actual spending cuts he would make in the budget, so proposing a constitutionally mandated spending cap is indeed a convenient way to pretend to be serious about the deficit without getting into actual substance. A cap like the one Pence envisions is totally unworkable for a variety of reasons, including: our imprecise GDP measurements (which would make assessing the dollar amount allowed under the cap very difficult); large and very obvious loopholes that could be exploited by Congress to circumvent the cap; and a complete lack of enforceability.

For someone who invokes the sanctity of the Constitution so often, Pence seems pretty cavalier about changing it to suit the political moment. And at the end of the day, proposing this sort of blunt budget instrument does nothing but provide Pence with a nice talking point that he can parrot to cover for his lack of actual, constructive ideas.

Yglesias

Milton Friedman on Quantitative Easing

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 30, 2010 at 2:27 pm

(cc photo by LateNightTaskForce)

One remarkable aspect of the recent conservative assault on QE2 is that the conventional wisdom on the American right is now well to the right of where Milton Friedman was ten years ago. Take these remarks on Japan from 2000:

In 1989, the Bank of Japan stepped on the brakes very hard and brought money supply down to negative rates for a while. The stock market broke. The economy went into a recession, and it’s been in a state of quasi recession ever since. Monetary growth has been too low. Now, the Bank of Japan’s argument is, “Oh well, we’ve got the interest rate down to zero; what more can we do?”

It’s very simple. They can buy long-term government securities, and they can keep buying them and providing high-powered money until the high powered money starts getting the economy in an expansion. What Japan needs is a more expansive domestic monetary policy.

The Japanese bank has supposedly had, until very recently, a zero interest rate policy. Yet that zero interest rate policy was evidence of an extremely tight monetary policy. Essentially, you had deflation. The real interest rate was positive; it was not negative. What you needed in Japan was more liquidity.

According to Mike Pence and Paul Ryan, this is left-wing lunacy. The only solution to any economic problems is tax cuts for rich people.

LGBT

Top 9 Findings From The Pentagon’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Report

By Igor Volsky on Nov 30, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Moments ago, in a press conference announcing the results of the Pentagon’s 10-month review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Working Group co-chairs Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, concluded that the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low and Gates even urged Congress to act on repeal before the Courts overturn the policy. “Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year,” he said. “It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat – by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.”

Johnson added that this resistance to repeal “is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes” and predicted that lifting the ban would not result in a mass coming out of gay troops. “We believe that most would continue to be private and discreet about their personal lives,” he said.

A summary of the results of the survey sent to 400,000 service members as outlined by the two chairmen:

- 70% of Service members said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units.

- 69% said they worked in a unit with a co-worker that they believed to be homosexual.

- 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” with a gay person was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” (89% for those in Army combat arms units, 84% for those in Marine combat arms units.)

- 74% of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve.

- 30% overall (and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) expressed negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Graph from the report (via JoeMyGod):

Their recommendations for implementation:

- LEADERSHIP AND EDUCATION: Implementation of repeal will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive education. The report recommends equipping commanders in the field with the education and training tools to educate the force on what is expected of them in a post repeal environment.

- CODE OF CONDUCT: Not necessary to establish an extensive set of new or revised standards of conduct in the event of repeal. The Department of Defense should issue guidance that all standards of conduct apply uniformly, without regard to sexual orientation.

- RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS: An important part of the message associated with any repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be that Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.

- BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS: While DOMA prevents same-sex partners form accessing many benefits, there are some benefits that are available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing. Department of Defense and the Services should inform Service members about these types of benefits, if the policy is repealed. Another set of benefits, which are not statutorily prohibited, but do not extend to same-sex partners under current regulation, should be revised and redefined to include same-sex partners. The Working Group does not, however, recommend that the DoD revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of “dependent,” “family members,” or other similar terms in those regulations, for purposes of extending benefits eligibility.

- REENLISTMENT: Service members who have been previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be permitted to apply for reentry into the military.

Significantly, Johnson also argued that historically, surveys about personnel changes “tend to overestimate negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate within its ranks the diversity that is reflective of American society at large.”

Indeed, as I reported back in July, surveys the military conducted about the troops’ attitudes towards black people between 1942 and 1946 showed that an overwhelming majority opposed integrating black servicemembers into the forces and preferred a “separate but equal” approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. One month before Truman’s executive order, a Gallup poll showed that 63% of American adults endorsed the separation of Blacks and Whites in the military; only 26% supported integration. But in 1948, Truman integrated the forces despite these concerns. Here’s to hoping Congress can do the same, this time, with overwhelming support from military leadership and the men and women on the ground.

Update

Read the full report HERE.


Update

,SLDN: “This exhaustive report is overwhelmingly positive and constructive. The Pentagon validated what repeal advocates and social scientists have been saying about open service for over a decade. Still, some initial resistance may come from one or more of the service chiefs – the very leaders who will be charged with implementing this change. Those chiefs will need to salute and lead in bringing about this needed change. Fortunately, the chiefs have already made it clear they will do precisely that if Congress acts. Now, it’s up to the Senate to make repeal happen this year,” said Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.


Update

,White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the repeal of DADT “was discussed during Obama’s meeting with bipartisan lawmakers Tuesday. Gibbs says Obama believes the ban on gays in the military can be repealed in the lame-duck session of Congress.”


Update

,Sens. Udall (CO), Lieberman, Gillibrand respond: “The Pentagon report makes it unambiguously clear that the risk of repeal on military effectiveness is minimal, that any risks can be addressed by implementing the report’s recommendations, and that a clear majority of active duty servicemen and women have no problem with repeal. The military has spoken and now is the time to repeal this policy that is damaging to our national security. The report is the product of one of the most, if not the most, extensive studies on a military personnel issue that has ever been conducted and its findings demonstrate that we can proceed with repeal of this discriminatory policy in a way that ensures that the U.S. military continues to be the best fighting force in the world. Men and women, regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation, who are willing to fight and defend our country should be allowed to do so without fear of discrimination.”


Update

[/

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up